Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

Some conversion for Coop games into normal wins for matchmaking?

Given that bot games are easy (as they should be), but considering how many people use them for first win, I would ask that Riot change the matchmaking algorithm (if it doesn't do this already) so that it would count 20 coop wins (or so) as a single normal win for the matchmaking algorithm. 20 coop wins, IMO, should count as time spent playing the game (relatively successfully, I might add), and so those people should have at least some advantage over the people that just play normals.

Bot games are so vastly different that this simply does not make sense. And frankly, there is absolutely no reason to count it in any algorithm, which we do not see anyway(unless you mean ranked, in which case this answer simply hardens). You can go play 200 bot games to start yourself with league, but it's not going to give you the advantage over someone who plays pvp, and you're going to find yourself lacking and having to unlearn many habits, and relearn new ones. In short, no, it's not giving anyone the advantage to go play a bunch of bot games.

Bot games are so vastly different that this simply does not make sense. And frankly, there is absolutely no reason to count it in any algorithm, which we do not see anyway(unless you mean ranked, in which case this answer simply hardens). You can go play 200 bot games to start yourself with league, but it's not going to give you the advantage over someone who plays pvp, and you're going to find yourself lacking and having to unlearn many habits, and relearn new ones. In short, no, it's not giving anyone the advantage to go play a bunch of bot games.

BS and you should know it. You can't learn the game without the tutorial; that's against bots. You play bot games to learn the mechanics and test out new champions, and those first ~50 games should count for something against someone that just plays the tutorial and goes straight into pvp (and predictably knows less than the person that practiced). BUT OH NOES BOT GAMES SHOULD COUNT FOR NOTHING.

Besides, playing first win against bots is surprisingly common as the primary game mode for people without a lot of time every day, but can play 1-2 games a day every day. What you want to do is make the people that play 1-2 games a day shortchanged against the people that play only normals.

No, it's not BS. I've seen plenty of people who play just bots for a very long time, and they plateau or have their learning sowed to a crawl very quickly. There's a VERY big difference between playing the tutorial for the basics and playing bot game after bot game instead of playing pvp. Someone who gets to level 30 off of bots is going to be significantly worse than someone who gets to level 30 from primarily pvp.

Bot games counting for some invisible number doesn't even help you as a player, what is your beef exactly? How are people shortchanged for playing bots(which is their choice) against people who play pvp?

No, it's not BS. I've seen plenty of people who play just bots for a very long time, and they plateau or have their learning sowed to a crawl very quickly. There's a VERY big difference between playing the tutorial for the basics and playing bot game after bot game instead of playing pvp. Someone who gets to level 30 off of bots is going to be significantly worse than someone who gets to level 30 from primarily pvp.

Bot games counting for some invisible number doesn't even help you as a player, what is your beef exactly? How are people shortchanged for playing bots(which is their choice) against people who play pvp?

OH GOD A NUANCED ARGUMENT

I agree with significantly worse; I do not agree that it should count for nothing. You can get XP for playing against bots and losing; I'm only talking about bot wins. People are being shortchanged b/c the ways that Riot is measuring their competence does not include many hours of gameplay in which they were surely demonstrating some level of competence.

For all of your love of PVP players, there's still rampant pro meta herd mentality and a basic lack of teamwork, as well as willingness to play different lanes, teamfight well and support the team. While against bots these skills might not be demonstrated to the same levels, it's STILL WORTH SOME MINIMAL AMOUNT THAT SHOULD BE COUNTED (lulz, what about hours played?).

I am honestly trying to understand your viewpoint here, and am still not there. I still do not understand or see how exactly it is shortchanging those people who play a lot of bot games by not counting bot games in PVP matchmaking algorithms. The number itself is not something that people ever actually see, since it's not a matter of counting these for ELO for ranked, and thus there is no ego benefit. As for the games themselves, you're theoretically playing with those whom you have shown the system you should play with in pvp, which is both the same and different than playing bots. However, you agree that the player who plays primarily bots is going to have trouble against primarily PVP players.

My question then is: how does it benefit that player who plays primarily bots, which are at a set skill level and once you learn how to beat are very easy, to be artificially raised in the invisible elo effecting PVP matchmaking and thus playing people who have even more of a skill gap over that player? I hope that question makes sense, if not I will certainly try to rephrase.

I can understand wanting to get something for it, but you truly don't get anything visible in terms of algorithms until you're talking ranked.

I am honestly trying to understand your viewpoint here, and am still not there. I still do not understand or see how exactly it is shortchanging those people who play a lot of bot games by not counting bot games in PVP matchmaking algorithms. The number itself is not something that people ever actually see, since it's not a matter of counting these for ELO for ranked, and thus there is no ego benefit. As for the games themselves, you're theoretically playing with those whom you have shown the system you should play with in pvp, which is both the same and different than playing bots. However, you agree that the player who plays primarily bots is going to have trouble against primarily PVP players.

My question then is: how does it benefit that player who plays primarily bots, which are at a set skill level and once you learn how to beat are very easy, to be artificially raised in the invisible elo effecting PVP matchmaking and thus playing people who have even more of a skill gap over that player? I hope that question makes sense, if not I will certainly try to rephrase.

I can understand wanting to get something for it, but you truly don't get anything visible in terms of algorithms until you're talking ranked.

I appreciate your patience.

While bots are at a certain skill level for sure, teams of people are absolutely not. IMO, bots teamfight a heck of a lot better than low elo teams, and low elo games almost always drag on for 45-50 minutes and usually end up being decided by teamfights and spawn timers (as compared to split pushing/pushing towers early and forcing teamfights while minions kill other lane's turrets). Against bots; that's irrelevant; it's practically impossible to win by pushing only one turret to win (in less than 20 minutes). In pvp games, this is a lot more common and is usually successful (IMO).

Let me give you an example. I, personally, have played 450+ bot games and only 130 (85 wins) normals, and 17 rankeds. My ELO as of the season 2 was 1180 (5-6, highest was 1278 or some silver ranking, I still have the silver border), and my current ELO for S3 is undetermined. I don't play terribly (IMO, for what it's worth), and I have played against many players that have higher WLRs AND more total games than me in normals.

However, I understand that my experience (and basically every other individual's) experiences may not be representative of the community as a whole or as a stereotype/trend. That being said, I think that my time in 450+ bot games (many, many, many only first wins), I deserve a bit more credit (not a lot, just something) in the normal matchmaking than I currently do.

I could see Co-op setting up a baseline for matchmaking, but no more. Namely, your winrate against Intermediate bots protects your ELO from sinking below a given value.

Example: You have a 95% winrate against Intermediate bots, the bots are rated at say 800, and the matchmaking determines the odds 95% in the player's favour at 900. Allowing for a bit of wiggle room, the player's ELO is prevented from going below 875. ELO gains/losses in that game are adjusted accordingly to prevent ELO inflation. With the impending change to a League system, that would mean players cannot sink below a given League/Division.

I could see Co-op setting up a baseline for matchmaking, but no more. Namely, your winrate against Intermediate bots protects your ELO from sinking below a given value.

Example: You have a 95% winrate against Intermediate bots, the bots are rated at say 800, and the matchmaking determines the odds 95% in the player's favour at 900. Allowing for a bit of wiggle room, the player's ELO is prevented from going below 875. ELO gains/losses in that game are adjusted accordingly to prevent ELO inflation. With the impending change to a League system, that would mean players cannot sink below a given League/Division.

I said NOTHING about elo; just wins for matchmaking. That corresponds to amount of game time played. That's what I'm going for.